| Identifier | T0460 [T] |
| Title | 佛說文殊師利淨律經 [T] |
| Date | 289 [T460 Postface] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [CSZJJ] |
| Amanuensis 筆受 | Nie Daocheng 聶道眞 [Ōno 1954] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — Table 6, p. 87 |
|
On the basis of a complex examination of the evidence in the catalogues from CSZJJ to KYL (73-92), Kawano arrives at this corpus of 41 texts, which he thinks can most safely be ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and dated, in order to construct a basis for examining Dharmarakṣa's corpus for the development of translation idiom over the course of his career. This note lists that corpus. Kawano arrives at this corpus on the basis of the following criteria: (1) He accepts texts which were probably dated in the original CSZJJ, as represented by the Koryŏ (Kawano shows that the version of CSZJJ received via the Song[-Yuan-Ming] line of transmission includes a large set of problematic additional dates); (2) He accepts texts first dated in Fajing, as long as the date was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL; (3) He rejects texts for which a translation date first appears in LDSBJ; (4) He adds one further text (T810) that can be dated on the basis of a (very early manuscript) colophon. [Note: This list includes four (or five?) lost texts, and a couple of texts ascribed to other translators in the received canon. The number of lost texts is uncertain, because the list includes a 無量壽經, which some modern scholars would be inclined to identify with T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145:55.7b12-8c9 |
|
In the list of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Dao'an, 28 bear dates. One of these (the 五蓋疑結失行經) has a note saying that Dao'an did not think it looked like a Dharmarakṣa text. This note lists the remaining 27. [Zürcher (2007): 66 suggests that this may be evidence that "in these cases [Dao'an's] attribution was based upon early dated colophons", which may mean that these attributions can be regarded as some of the strongest in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, on external grounds.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 54 n. 26 |
|
Mei begins with the 76 texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taishō which also appear in Sengyou. She then eliminates eight for the following reasons: five are listed as lost by Sengyou's time (T182, T288, T496, T558, T1301); T1301, moreover, contains details that makes it appear as if it may have been composed in China; T103 and T453 have been regarded as dubious by modern scholars (Gao Mingdao and Yinshun); and Sengyou's description of the 佛為菩薩五夢經 that he ascribes to Dharmarakṣa does not match T310(4). This leaves 68 texts Mei thinks can reliably be matched against Sengyou. This entry lists those 68 texts. [Note: Mei erroneously gives the number T627 for what is properly T636---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[T460 Postface] Anon. Wenshushili jing lü jing ji 文殊師利淨律經記. |
Translated in 289 by Dharmarakṣa 曇法護[var. 竺法護, SYM], with Nie Daozhen 聶道真 as amanuensis 筆受. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 61-62 |
This text does not contain the usual closing formula, but Mei argues that this is because the reciter forgot the second half of the text, referring to the colophon preserved in CSZJJ [於京師遇西國寂志從出此經。經後尚有數品。其人忘失... T2145:55.51b9-10. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 66 |
|
Zürcher states that in the list of texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa by Dao'an, 29 bear dates [I actually count 28; further, one, the 五蓋疑結失行經, has a note saying that Dao'an did not think it looked like a Dharmarakṣa text, and so I also exclude it---MR]. This note lists the remaining 27. Zürcher suggests that this may be evidence that "in these cases [Dao'an's] attribution was based upon early dated colophons". [This may mean that these attributions can be regarded as some of the strongest in the Dharmarakṣa corpus, on external grounds.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 275 |
In the appendix to his dissertation Boucher provides a list of ninety-five texts attributed to Dharmarakṣa by Sengyou in his Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145, along with a note on relevant scholarship. Among these texts is the Wenshushili jinglü jing 文殊師利淨律經 Paramārthasaṃvṛtisatyānirdeśa-sūtra T460, which Sengyou dated May 14, 289. He adds that the text is also known as Jinglü jing 淨律經. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 343 n. 221 |
|
Sengyou's CSZJJ preserves fifteen prefaces, postfaces and colophons to works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. This entry lists those works; one, the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra, is no longer extant. [All other things being equal, the external evidence supporting the ascription to Dharmarakṣa for these texts should therefore be stronger than for other texts. I was unable to find the colophon Zürcher points to for T285---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Suzuki 1995] Suzuki Hiromi 鈴木裕美. “Koyaku kyōten ni okeru yakugo ni tsuite: Jiku Hōgo yakushutsu kyōten wo chūshin toshite 古訳経典における訳語について―竺法護訳出経典を中心として.” IBK 43, no. 2 (1995): 198-200. |
|
Suzuki regards the texts listed in this entry as genuine Dharmarakṣa translations. She groups them into five types, on the basis of stylistic features: A: T222, T588 , T636 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 5, pp. 349-350 |
According to Ōno Hōdō 大野法道, the 清淨毘尼方廣經 T1489 ascribed to Kumārajīva, the 寂調音所問經 T1490 ascribed to Fahai 法海 and the 文殊師利淨律經 T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa are alternate translations of the same text. However, Ōno also points out that there is a disagreement among catalogues as to the ascription of T1489: the Fashang catalogue 法上錄, KYL, the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄, etc., state that it is Kumārajīva’s work, while Fajing, Jingtai and DTNDL claim that it is Dharmarakṣa’s. Ōno himself argues that since Dharmarakṣa translated T460, T1489 should be Kumārajīva’s work. [However, this may require us to consider the possibility that T1489 is in fact by Dharmarakṣa, and therefore also question the ascription of T460 --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 115 |
Ōno states that there are three alternate translation of the Paramārthasaṃvṛtisatya-nirdeśa. The oldest among them is the Wenshushili jing lü jing 文殊師利淨律經 T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. According to the postface 翻譯後記 (in CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 51b8-13), the text of T460 was recited by Jizhi 寂志 (*Śramaṇa?), translated by Dharmarakṣa, with Nie Daocheng 聶道眞 as amanuensis 筆受. Approximately six columns 六段 are missing in this translation, because the reciter forgot that part. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 32 |
LDSBJ first lists a Wenshushili jing lü jing 文殊師利淨律經 as one of the scriptures ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞, citing the Bie lu 別錄 with a note reading, “第二出。與法護譯小異.” DZKZM includes it in an alternate translation group (consisting of the Wenshushili jing lü jing, here again ascribed to Nie Daozhen, the extant Wenshushili jing lü jing T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, the Jitiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經, and the Qingjing pini fangguang jing 清淨毘尼方廣經) and states that three of them are extant, and one missing 前後四譯三存一缺. However, Ōno points out that as Nie Daozhen worked for Dharmarakṣa as amanuensis 筆受 in the translation of T460, the Wenshushili jing lü jing ascribed to him surely never existed, and should be excised. Ōno adds that a report of a non-extant scripture like this indicates just how unreliable the Bie lu is. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, are listed the following titles corresponding to extant texts by Dharmarakṣa (titles in the DH mss. Bie lu are identified by the numbering given to the manuscripts in Tan 1991): T170 = Tan#3, T199 = Tan#53; possibly T222 = Tan#20 (the title given is 小品經), T310(3) = Tan#78, T317 = Tan#52, T323 = Tan#6, T324 = Tan#4, probably part of T325 = Tan#31, T338 = Tan#8, T433 = Tan#51, T460 = Tan#1 (title missing, but ms. here can be reconstructed on the basis of comparison with CSZJJ); T534 = Tan#9, T567 = Tan#11, T569 = Tan#50, T589 = Tan#10, T811 = Tan#7, T812 = Tan#2, T817 = Tan#5. In addition, the Bie lu features interlinear notes following the following titles, directly identifying Dharmarakṣa as the translator of the text(s) in question, and/or giving dates and other circumstances of translation. These notes largely correspond verbatim to similar notes given for various parts of the Dhr corpus in CSZJJ, either in Sengyou's own interlinear notes, or, in a couple of cases, in independent documents relating to the texts in question: T460 = Tan#1 (see T2145 [LV] 51b8-13); T567 = Tan#10 (CSZJJ 50b6-10); T222? = Tan#20 (CSZJJ 9b28-c4). An open question is whether such notes in the Bie lu are meant to apply only to the single title that they follow, or to groups of titles (and if they apply to groups of titles, how many titles are covered by each single note). A slightly more complex case is T638 = Tan#62, where an interlinear note already gives the information (carried elsewhere too) that the text was produced by Dharmarakṣa and then revised by Nie Chengyuan, This information corresponds closely in wording to CSZJJ 9c6-8. Dating of this Bie lu is a complex matter; see other CBC@ entries directly on these DH manuscript witnesses, citations in later catalogues etc. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
The "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, can be reconstructed as beginning with the title 文殊師利淨律經, i.e. T460. The reconstruction is based upon the fact that the missing title is immediately followed, at the beginning of the preserved portion of the manuscript fragment, by the following interlinear note: 法護於京師遇西國寂志從出經後尚有數品其 This wording corresponds verbatim to a part of the "record/memoir" on the translation of T460, the "Wenshushili jing lü jing ji" 文殊師利淨律經記, preserved at CSZJJ juan 7, T2145 (LV) 51b8-13. The verbatim correspondence of wording between these two sources raises interesting but difficult questions about the chronological priority between the Bie lu and CSZJJ. A further difficult question is whether one of the two directly borrowed from the other, or whether they drew on a common third source. Consideration of these questions must take into consideration the fact that the Bie lu, as witnessed in two Dunhuang fragments, contains a number of notes displaying such correspondences to the wording of CSZJJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|